This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to
Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
"The French philosopher, convert to Islam, and Holocaust denialist, Roger Garaudy, who was married to a Palestinian woman, used the text the following year in the English version of his book, L'Affaire Israël: le sionisme politique, to support his argument that a mechanism was in place to drive Arabs out of what was defined as Eretz Israel and disintegrate Arab countries."
Could someone explain how Primakov supposedly connects Ambassador ball and his comments on Lebanon to Yinon? As far as I can tell the only connection is that the two paragraphs appear on the same page of the ebook.
Epson Salts (
talk)
14:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I have access to the Primakov source. I was asking No More Mr Nice Guy about a different source , with relation to a different part of THE article. This is not too difficult to understand, if you pay attention. Back to the topic at hand: How is Primakov connecting the Ball comments to Yinon? Anyone?
Epson Salts (
talk)
17:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
You have tagged this as POV, the tag reading:’ Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.’ If you had checked the talk page you would see no such discussion on the talk page. You should have provided one.
If you have legitimate objections list them there so they can be addressed. I’ll leave it up for the moment, but you will have to set forth clear policy based arguments there if it is to stay.
(a) Where does policy state that all articles must be sourced to specialists? (b) Noam Chomsky also is a specialist on American policy, the Middle East and specifically Israel’s relations with the Arab world, on which he has written several widely cited books. (c) Besides being a noted economist, Michel Chossudovsky provided a translation of the Yinon document on his page, which you removed just as you removed, only to have the
RSN board overturn you, the link to Jonathan Ofir’s translation of a key text for the
Al-Dawayima massacre. You left it in the reference system, but it should not be there unless it has article text supporting it. There is no sense in removing a reference to that translation in the body of the article.
It took me a few seconds to find a source saying that an Oded Yinon existed, who lectures to students like Tamara Park and who believes the Middle east is a tinder spot ready to explode. It may not be him, but an Oded Yinon exists.Lecturing on the day news of Sept 11 2001 Tamara Park
Sacred Encounters from Rome to Jerusalem, InterVarsity Press, 2008 p.11
Nishidani (
talk)
13:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Nishidani There is no single reliable source, supporting that Oded Yinon ever existed. I've searched in Hebrew and English and didn't find anything, besides known conspiracy theory sites. Otherwise, mainstream reliable sources supports that the whole Yinon Plan is new "Protocols of Sion Elders" and he didn't exist. For example. this one:
[1].
Arthistorian1977 (
talk)
13:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't have anything against linking to the translation but why opinion of those two individuals that not academics on this topics are
WP:DUE to include?--
Shrike (
talk)
13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Please read the relevant articles on Chomsky and Chossudovsky, Please focus on answering my request for the basis in policy of your aapparent belief that articles must be composed by sources that are authored by academic specialists on the specific field, exclusive of all other otherwise reputable sources. (2)Your use of
WP:Due is unfocused. What is due or not due must be argued convincingly, not simply asserted. Citing policy tags without explaining their specific relevance to some text by illustrating is flag-waving.
Nishidani (
talk)
13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I already answered they not professionals in the field and hence can't be used to asses Oded Yinon Article.The
WP:ONUS is on you to prove why we should use this sources and why their opinion is important at all--
Shrike (
talk)
13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
For the third time, cite the policy. The text you removed without a policy ground was stable for several months. No reader questioned the inclusion of those sources. When a text has been scrutinized by several practiced eyes, and then is suddenly excised without a policy ground, the onus lies with the eraser, not with the community that reviewed it and didn't object for a considerable amount of time.
By the way, in
your recent edit you (a=) introduced an author and a source that are already present in the text, and failed to observe the protocols of the reference system used. The text already has
All citations used have page numbers, your new one, to a source already used, does not have a page citation. So please provide one on this talk page. and if possible provide the text. (This is apart from the fact that you have added reduplicated text).
Nishidani (
talk)
15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I only quote Zero word from some other article "Although you are not the first editor to think that long-standing text has higher status, there is no such rule. The onus is on those wishing articles to contain given text, regardless of how long it has been there. " And the policy is already cited
WP:ONUS.--
Shrike (
talk)
06:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The major onus on editors is to avoid confusing everyone by excessive editorial interventions which complicate matters. I negotiated with you to get you to avoid repeating the use of Mordechai Nisan.
Mordechai Nisan likewise notes that it made waves, stirring both curiosity and wrath, the latter since it fed into regional suspicions that Israel was intent on "balkanizing" the neighbourhood.p.275
You clicked on this source, and then added without page numeration a reference to the same source with a very curious summary of his position, and placed it in the next section:
<
Mordechai Nisan noted exaggerated reaction to the article that represent (sic) only (sic) personal view of the author and not government policy.(p.275 added)
Now p.275 which you now supply to support this 'paraphrase' has absolutely no mention of Mordechai Nisan stating that Yinon's paper 'represent(s) only (the) personal view of the author, and not government policy,'
So your addition for this rephrasing is ungrounded in the page you cite. Please, cite the exact text in Nisan p.275 which justifies your 'paraphrase.'
Shrike. Thanks for
this. but you are making hard work of this. You removed sfn|Sleiman|2014|p=94.n53 as well as though that addition were from the IP, as my link to your revert shows.
Unless you can come up with text that justifies your paraphrase from Mordechai Nisan (itself a reduplication in different words of what I cited and wrote) then your addition there too must be removed. I'm waiting fore you to address this issue, as requested.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'll fix the other error you made, and will fix the confusion you caused by having essentially the same source and pages (Mordechai Nisan) cited in two different sections. Please edit more carefully in future. These things, dragging on 2 days, could have been resolved in a few minutes of attentive review.
Nishidani (
talk)
09:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
When I tagged the article, I assumed that the problems would be so obvious that stating them here would be superfluous. However, it appears that I was mistaken. Here are a few, some mentioned in the edit summary:
The title of the article itself—while there are no scientifically rigorous requirements for something to be called a "plan", it is plain that an article by an unknown individual that makes no indication of acceptance by anyone else, is not a "plan". At most it is a proposal, but even that's being generous, as a proposal with its own Wikipedia article must indicate some kind of notability (most importantly, acceptance by high-level officials or notable non-official groups).
There are a lot of sources in the article, but most don't satisfy WP:RS. Some of these are cited for facts, which directly violates a number of Wikipedia policies, and NPOV indirectly. For example, the primary non-RS source Prince Talal is used as a citation for the "fact" that Yinon was an advisor to Ariel Sharon. Not saying all of these alleged facts are wrong, but some of them make little sense, like this one. Why would Sharon, who had not been the foreign minister as of 1982, have an advisor who was a clerk (sorry, senior official) in the foreign ministry? Why was it kept secret? (as there are no other sources I could find linking the two). Sounds like another
Ouze Merham case to me.
Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong), except Yinon himself (doesn't count). This alone might not be a huge issue (depends on context), but at least two of these sources are Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak, who are on the far fringes and should not be used as sources on Wikipedia on anything Israel-related. I think this has been long-established, especially in the case of Chomsky. Some are even cited in the lead.
To continue the previous two points, the "Contemporary reception" and "Interpretations" sections are completely one-sided. With the exception of Mordechai Nisan, it reads like one long anti-Israel opinion piece (not surprising since it includes long-time anti-Israel activists). It's true that most Israeli sources, like Nisan, dismiss the article out of hand and don't take it seriously, and this might be why it was difficult to find an Israeli or pro-Israel point of view. However, this is not an excuse to give undue weight to conspiracy theories. Feature articles like
this one (by Haaretz subsidiary TheMarker, which cannot be accused of being right-wing), where it cites reactions to Yinon's article as a ridiculous conspiracy theory, should be given equal weight.
Here is another one by The Jewish Press. At the same time, the section should be shortened and similar opinions/interpretations (almost all of them) should be grouped.
Aside from all of the above, I was personally unable to verify that Yinon even exists, let alone is a notable individual, a senior official, a journalist or a diplomat (note: just noticed the conversation below this one that says he existed. I am not really arguing that he didn't, rather that it's so hard to find any reliable information on him that he could not be as notable as this article makes it appear). A Hebrew-language search turns up some references to Yinon's article (although the article does not appear to exist online in its original language/form), but no explanation of who Yinon is (one article briefly states that he was a foreign ministry clerk). I was in any case unable to find a single source that talks about Oded Yinon outside of this article's context.
(b)a proposal with its own Wikipedia article must indicate some kind of notability, acceptance by high-level officials or notable non-official groups’
The first part is correct. The second clause strikes me as an invention. A plan or proposal is just that, something put forward in an official policy journal or forum. Whether it is followed through, implemented by high officials etc. is wholly irrelevant if its notability is established by sources widely commenting on it.
(c) ’ a lot of sources in the article, but most don't satisfy
WP:RS.'
A mere glance, with a familiar eye, at the sourcing contradicts your claim.
(1)There are 25 references, 15 cite mainstream publishers, university presses, or specialist institutes i.e. the majority. Edinburgh University Press, SUNY Press (2). South End Press, Pluto Press (3). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Transaction Publishers. Brookings Institute, Algora Publishing, Hurst Publishers, McFarland & Company, Walter de Gruyter, University of Michigan Press
(3)2 are high profile political insiders at the highest level withintimate personal knowledge of the area, Yevgeny Primakov, Hassan bin Talal,
(4)2 are noted journalist sa and commentators specializing in this area (Jonathan Cook), Linda S Heard.
(5) 1 Just one is a noted left-wing activist, namely
Ralph Schoenman. Compare
the pathetic version we had before I stepped in to fix the shambles, a mere five sources.
(d)Left-wing bias.’ Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong), except Yinon himself (doesn't count).’
Can you define for me what left-wing means? I knew what it meant 60-40 years ago, but the only sense it has in my reading over recent decades is that it is as a term of contempt most frequently directed at any one with a public profile for a addressing human rights issues, or as a dismissive term for opinions formed by anyone with a doctoral degree in the subject she writes on.
(e) ‘the primary non-RS source Prince Talal is used as a citation for the "fact" that Yinon was an advisor to Ariel Sharon.’
That is a very odd inference (and the rest is second guessing sources on Yinon without evidence). As a regional actor at the highest level who was privy to the ‘Israeli-Jordanian conversation’, Prince Talal is a respectable source for the information stated. If one disagrees, the solution is to use attribution, which I did (reputedly=
Prince Hassan bin Talal). I have no objections. I note that
User:Shrike in another
false edit summary took this out while it is under discussion, reverting my edit under the pretext of reverting an IP ('Rv changes done by editor in violation of WP:ARBPIA3'). Shrike, you have reported people to AE/AN/1 for less, so I suggest you restore the wording I put in while we continue discussing possible changes.
(f) ‘Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong)’
The use of ‘left-wing’ here is meaningless, as it is generally. In Israeli usage, I know, it means ‘human rights activists’, but as the analysis of the sources and their authors shows, such a categorization of a wide variety of figures is void of meaning
(g)
Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak, who are on the far fringes and should not be used as sources on Wikipedia on anything Israel-related
This is extreme caricature. Chomsky has
lectured at
West Point, by invitation, on the Middle East;
Israel Shahak, whose status as a ‘controversial figure’ is easily challenged, but is not cited for his general interpretations of Judaism or Israel, but for his translation of a document in Hebrew, whose quality/accuracy is not disputed.
(h)’With the exception of Mordechai Nisan, it reads like one long anti-Israel opinion piece (not surprising since it includes long-time anti-Israel activists). It's true that most Israeli sources, like Nisan, dismiss the article out of hand and don't take it seriously, and this might be why it was difficult to find an Israeli or pro-Israel point of view
Mordechai Nisan holds extremist views on the wing opposite to that of Ralph Schoenman, , as you can see reading his input at
Arutz Sheva. Not for that do I excluded him. He thinks anyone backing Palestinian rights is engaged in insurgency, and that they should be bundled into Jordan if they can’t face their destiny as non-citizens with borough sovereignty in a greater Israel. To evaluate interpretations in a ‘pro-Israeli’/’anti-Israeli balance is the cause of much confusion, since the question begged is always ‘which kind of Israel’., not whether a point of view is for or against an ‘Israel’ whose nature is never defined, territorially or otherwise.
(I) You think it unbalanced because it lacks countervailing sources. All I have done is cover the English RS sources. If Hebrew-language RS dismiss interpretations of Yinon’s essay as useless, roll your sleeves up: they should be cited, except for
rubbish like the second source you refer to, the anonymous
JNi.Media hosted by
The Jewish Press, itself not a particularly good source. I say it is rubbish because whoever lies behind the anonymity writes.
The Iranian author claims to have retrieved this information from spy cables sent by the Guardian and Al Jazeera
The author claimed no such thing:
Israel has “plans to appropriate African diamonds”, as well as efforts to secure “African uranium, thorium and other radioactive elements used to manufacture nuclear fuel,” according to spy cables revealed by the Guardian and the Al Jazeera, citing South African Intelligence agents Reza Bahar Africa is home to other precious minerals, as well.'
Islamic Republic News Agency 23/09/2015
The main reason I wrote that I'm not fond of this article is that I don't know of an proven direct connection between Yinon's opinion and Israeli official policy. Of course one can argue for similarities as many authors have, and one can claim that he was some "former senior official" (which is a particular assertion I would not bet my house on), but only a handful of senior officials make policy and we would know more about Yinon if he was one of them. I think this article should exist just because the noise surrounding Yinon's article is sufficiently loud, but we must be careful in attributing all opinions to those making them.
Zerotalk09:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Cut it out. Of course Oded Yinon existed.
I've never been fond of this article, but really this rubbish about Oded Yinon not existing has to stop. I have no sympathy for people who repeatedly parrot this fable without the slightest evidence. Of course he existed. You can look at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oded Yinon for multiple proofs provided by Roland. I also provided proofs but I don't know where they are (maybe on the talk page of the deleted article). For example the letter he published in
Commentary, Vol 78, No 6, 1984, pages 9–10? Do non-existent people write letters? Even better, his letter in the same magazine of Vol 82, No 6, 1986, page 11 is perfectly consistent: "The idea of 'territory for peace' has been dead for years..a measure of the [Israeli] cabinet's naïveté and stupidity...In the coming years, however, we are going to see a totally different Israeli policy."
Here you can find Yinon's article in Kivunim listed in an Israeli library catalogue with full bibliographic details. And
here the details of several other publications of the non-existent Oded Yinon.
Zerotalk19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Of course. The problem was not that silly idea, so much as the fact that two of the 3 editors who edited the page, and obviously saw this attempt to deny his existence, did not care to remove the ridiculous counter-factual intrusion of Yinon being an 'alleged' person. This indifference by long-term editors watching the page to blatantly counterfactual edits (if they can be read as supportive of one POV?) is one of several things that made me change my mind, and come back here.
Nishidani (
talk)
21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Undue weight to a conspiracy theory charge in the lead
Why should a POV coming from an Israeli source claiming the Yinon plan is a conspiracy theory be pushed into the lead? The lead should be representative of the general points in the body. The conspiracy charge to me makes for undue weight and POV-pushing! --
Expectant of Light (
talk)
06:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by POV? We mention that the Yinon Plan is a document, with a theory which is mentioned in reliable sources as feeding into conspiracy theories. This is simply a precise registration of what sources say, and what we are obliged to transcribe. Not to do so, as you seem to suggest, would be to repress valid POV documentation pertinent to the theory's fate.
Nishidani (
talk)
10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Haaretz is a reliable source for matters concerning Israel. The article used as a source discusses conspiracy theories in general, not only the Yinon Plan and not only ones about Israel. It doesn't express any point of view.
I've added it to the lead since most of the times I've heard about the Yinon Plan it was included in some conspiracy theory. Every attempt to try to make this document relevant today to Israeli policy is usually part of a conspiracy theory.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The perception of conspiracy theory is often subjective. So you can't determine it based on your personal judgement of what is and is not a conspiracy theory. At any rate, I believe you need more reliable sources to back up the weight given to the thesis in the lead. Otherwise it has to move to the body. --
Expectant of Light (
talk)
05:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
If there are any further POV issues, please put then down, with clear specific examples so that each issue can be dealt with. The function of tags is not to blemish, but to request work be done. If the work is done, they no longer serve their poipose.
This tag was put in, I called for details, a very few were supplied. I replied extensively in the earlier thread to each, and at times the text was adjusted. I think the former POV queries have been answered, and therefore the POV tag is past its due expiry date. I therefore intend to remove it.
Nishidani (
talk)
19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to
Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
"The French philosopher, convert to Islam, and Holocaust denialist, Roger Garaudy, who was married to a Palestinian woman, used the text the following year in the English version of his book, L'Affaire Israël: le sionisme politique, to support his argument that a mechanism was in place to drive Arabs out of what was defined as Eretz Israel and disintegrate Arab countries."
Could someone explain how Primakov supposedly connects Ambassador ball and his comments on Lebanon to Yinon? As far as I can tell the only connection is that the two paragraphs appear on the same page of the ebook.
Epson Salts (
talk)
14:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I have access to the Primakov source. I was asking No More Mr Nice Guy about a different source , with relation to a different part of THE article. This is not too difficult to understand, if you pay attention. Back to the topic at hand: How is Primakov connecting the Ball comments to Yinon? Anyone?
Epson Salts (
talk)
17:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
You have tagged this as POV, the tag reading:’ Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.’ If you had checked the talk page you would see no such discussion on the talk page. You should have provided one.
If you have legitimate objections list them there so they can be addressed. I’ll leave it up for the moment, but you will have to set forth clear policy based arguments there if it is to stay.
(a) Where does policy state that all articles must be sourced to specialists? (b) Noam Chomsky also is a specialist on American policy, the Middle East and specifically Israel’s relations with the Arab world, on which he has written several widely cited books. (c) Besides being a noted economist, Michel Chossudovsky provided a translation of the Yinon document on his page, which you removed just as you removed, only to have the
RSN board overturn you, the link to Jonathan Ofir’s translation of a key text for the
Al-Dawayima massacre. You left it in the reference system, but it should not be there unless it has article text supporting it. There is no sense in removing a reference to that translation in the body of the article.
It took me a few seconds to find a source saying that an Oded Yinon existed, who lectures to students like Tamara Park and who believes the Middle east is a tinder spot ready to explode. It may not be him, but an Oded Yinon exists.Lecturing on the day news of Sept 11 2001 Tamara Park
Sacred Encounters from Rome to Jerusalem, InterVarsity Press, 2008 p.11
Nishidani (
talk)
13:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Nishidani There is no single reliable source, supporting that Oded Yinon ever existed. I've searched in Hebrew and English and didn't find anything, besides known conspiracy theory sites. Otherwise, mainstream reliable sources supports that the whole Yinon Plan is new "Protocols of Sion Elders" and he didn't exist. For example. this one:
[1].
Arthistorian1977 (
talk)
13:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't have anything against linking to the translation but why opinion of those two individuals that not academics on this topics are
WP:DUE to include?--
Shrike (
talk)
13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Please read the relevant articles on Chomsky and Chossudovsky, Please focus on answering my request for the basis in policy of your aapparent belief that articles must be composed by sources that are authored by academic specialists on the specific field, exclusive of all other otherwise reputable sources. (2)Your use of
WP:Due is unfocused. What is due or not due must be argued convincingly, not simply asserted. Citing policy tags without explaining their specific relevance to some text by illustrating is flag-waving.
Nishidani (
talk)
13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I already answered they not professionals in the field and hence can't be used to asses Oded Yinon Article.The
WP:ONUS is on you to prove why we should use this sources and why their opinion is important at all--
Shrike (
talk)
13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
For the third time, cite the policy. The text you removed without a policy ground was stable for several months. No reader questioned the inclusion of those sources. When a text has been scrutinized by several practiced eyes, and then is suddenly excised without a policy ground, the onus lies with the eraser, not with the community that reviewed it and didn't object for a considerable amount of time.
By the way, in
your recent edit you (a=) introduced an author and a source that are already present in the text, and failed to observe the protocols of the reference system used. The text already has
All citations used have page numbers, your new one, to a source already used, does not have a page citation. So please provide one on this talk page. and if possible provide the text. (This is apart from the fact that you have added reduplicated text).
Nishidani (
talk)
15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I only quote Zero word from some other article "Although you are not the first editor to think that long-standing text has higher status, there is no such rule. The onus is on those wishing articles to contain given text, regardless of how long it has been there. " And the policy is already cited
WP:ONUS.--
Shrike (
talk)
06:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The major onus on editors is to avoid confusing everyone by excessive editorial interventions which complicate matters. I negotiated with you to get you to avoid repeating the use of Mordechai Nisan.
Mordechai Nisan likewise notes that it made waves, stirring both curiosity and wrath, the latter since it fed into regional suspicions that Israel was intent on "balkanizing" the neighbourhood.p.275
You clicked on this source, and then added without page numeration a reference to the same source with a very curious summary of his position, and placed it in the next section:
<
Mordechai Nisan noted exaggerated reaction to the article that represent (sic) only (sic) personal view of the author and not government policy.(p.275 added)
Now p.275 which you now supply to support this 'paraphrase' has absolutely no mention of Mordechai Nisan stating that Yinon's paper 'represent(s) only (the) personal view of the author, and not government policy,'
So your addition for this rephrasing is ungrounded in the page you cite. Please, cite the exact text in Nisan p.275 which justifies your 'paraphrase.'
Shrike. Thanks for
this. but you are making hard work of this. You removed sfn|Sleiman|2014|p=94.n53 as well as though that addition were from the IP, as my link to your revert shows.
Unless you can come up with text that justifies your paraphrase from Mordechai Nisan (itself a reduplication in different words of what I cited and wrote) then your addition there too must be removed. I'm waiting fore you to address this issue, as requested.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'll fix the other error you made, and will fix the confusion you caused by having essentially the same source and pages (Mordechai Nisan) cited in two different sections. Please edit more carefully in future. These things, dragging on 2 days, could have been resolved in a few minutes of attentive review.
Nishidani (
talk)
09:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
When I tagged the article, I assumed that the problems would be so obvious that stating them here would be superfluous. However, it appears that I was mistaken. Here are a few, some mentioned in the edit summary:
The title of the article itself—while there are no scientifically rigorous requirements for something to be called a "plan", it is plain that an article by an unknown individual that makes no indication of acceptance by anyone else, is not a "plan". At most it is a proposal, but even that's being generous, as a proposal with its own Wikipedia article must indicate some kind of notability (most importantly, acceptance by high-level officials or notable non-official groups).
There are a lot of sources in the article, but most don't satisfy WP:RS. Some of these are cited for facts, which directly violates a number of Wikipedia policies, and NPOV indirectly. For example, the primary non-RS source Prince Talal is used as a citation for the "fact" that Yinon was an advisor to Ariel Sharon. Not saying all of these alleged facts are wrong, but some of them make little sense, like this one. Why would Sharon, who had not been the foreign minister as of 1982, have an advisor who was a clerk (sorry, senior official) in the foreign ministry? Why was it kept secret? (as there are no other sources I could find linking the two). Sounds like another
Ouze Merham case to me.
Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong), except Yinon himself (doesn't count). This alone might not be a huge issue (depends on context), but at least two of these sources are Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak, who are on the far fringes and should not be used as sources on Wikipedia on anything Israel-related. I think this has been long-established, especially in the case of Chomsky. Some are even cited in the lead.
To continue the previous two points, the "Contemporary reception" and "Interpretations" sections are completely one-sided. With the exception of Mordechai Nisan, it reads like one long anti-Israel opinion piece (not surprising since it includes long-time anti-Israel activists). It's true that most Israeli sources, like Nisan, dismiss the article out of hand and don't take it seriously, and this might be why it was difficult to find an Israeli or pro-Israel point of view. However, this is not an excuse to give undue weight to conspiracy theories. Feature articles like
this one (by Haaretz subsidiary TheMarker, which cannot be accused of being right-wing), where it cites reactions to Yinon's article as a ridiculous conspiracy theory, should be given equal weight.
Here is another one by The Jewish Press. At the same time, the section should be shortened and similar opinions/interpretations (almost all of them) should be grouped.
Aside from all of the above, I was personally unable to verify that Yinon even exists, let alone is a notable individual, a senior official, a journalist or a diplomat (note: just noticed the conversation below this one that says he existed. I am not really arguing that he didn't, rather that it's so hard to find any reliable information on him that he could not be as notable as this article makes it appear). A Hebrew-language search turns up some references to Yinon's article (although the article does not appear to exist online in its original language/form), but no explanation of who Yinon is (one article briefly states that he was a foreign ministry clerk). I was in any case unable to find a single source that talks about Oded Yinon outside of this article's context.
(b)a proposal with its own Wikipedia article must indicate some kind of notability, acceptance by high-level officials or notable non-official groups’
The first part is correct. The second clause strikes me as an invention. A plan or proposal is just that, something put forward in an official policy journal or forum. Whether it is followed through, implemented by high officials etc. is wholly irrelevant if its notability is established by sources widely commenting on it.
(c) ’ a lot of sources in the article, but most don't satisfy
WP:RS.'
A mere glance, with a familiar eye, at the sourcing contradicts your claim.
(1)There are 25 references, 15 cite mainstream publishers, university presses, or specialist institutes i.e. the majority. Edinburgh University Press, SUNY Press (2). South End Press, Pluto Press (3). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Transaction Publishers. Brookings Institute, Algora Publishing, Hurst Publishers, McFarland & Company, Walter de Gruyter, University of Michigan Press
(3)2 are high profile political insiders at the highest level withintimate personal knowledge of the area, Yevgeny Primakov, Hassan bin Talal,
(4)2 are noted journalist sa and commentators specializing in this area (Jonathan Cook), Linda S Heard.
(5) 1 Just one is a noted left-wing activist, namely
Ralph Schoenman. Compare
the pathetic version we had before I stepped in to fix the shambles, a mere five sources.
(d)Left-wing bias.’ Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong), except Yinon himself (doesn't count).’
Can you define for me what left-wing means? I knew what it meant 60-40 years ago, but the only sense it has in my reading over recent decades is that it is as a term of contempt most frequently directed at any one with a public profile for a addressing human rights issues, or as a dismissive term for opinions formed by anyone with a doctoral degree in the subject she writes on.
(e) ‘the primary non-RS source Prince Talal is used as a citation for the "fact" that Yinon was an advisor to Ariel Sharon.’
That is a very odd inference (and the rest is second guessing sources on Yinon without evidence). As a regional actor at the highest level who was privy to the ‘Israeli-Jordanian conversation’, Prince Talal is a respectable source for the information stated. If one disagrees, the solution is to use attribution, which I did (reputedly=
Prince Hassan bin Talal). I have no objections. I note that
User:Shrike in another
false edit summary took this out while it is under discussion, reverting my edit under the pretext of reverting an IP ('Rv changes done by editor in violation of WP:ARBPIA3'). Shrike, you have reported people to AE/AN/1 for less, so I suggest you restore the wording I put in while we continue discussing possible changes.
(f) ‘Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong)’
The use of ‘left-wing’ here is meaningless, as it is generally. In Israeli usage, I know, it means ‘human rights activists’, but as the analysis of the sources and their authors shows, such a categorization of a wide variety of figures is void of meaning
(g)
Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak, who are on the far fringes and should not be used as sources on Wikipedia on anything Israel-related
This is extreme caricature. Chomsky has
lectured at
West Point, by invitation, on the Middle East;
Israel Shahak, whose status as a ‘controversial figure’ is easily challenged, but is not cited for his general interpretations of Judaism or Israel, but for his translation of a document in Hebrew, whose quality/accuracy is not disputed.
(h)’With the exception of Mordechai Nisan, it reads like one long anti-Israel opinion piece (not surprising since it includes long-time anti-Israel activists). It's true that most Israeli sources, like Nisan, dismiss the article out of hand and don't take it seriously, and this might be why it was difficult to find an Israeli or pro-Israel point of view
Mordechai Nisan holds extremist views on the wing opposite to that of Ralph Schoenman, , as you can see reading his input at
Arutz Sheva. Not for that do I excluded him. He thinks anyone backing Palestinian rights is engaged in insurgency, and that they should be bundled into Jordan if they can’t face their destiny as non-citizens with borough sovereignty in a greater Israel. To evaluate interpretations in a ‘pro-Israeli’/’anti-Israeli balance is the cause of much confusion, since the question begged is always ‘which kind of Israel’., not whether a point of view is for or against an ‘Israel’ whose nature is never defined, territorially or otherwise.
(I) You think it unbalanced because it lacks countervailing sources. All I have done is cover the English RS sources. If Hebrew-language RS dismiss interpretations of Yinon’s essay as useless, roll your sleeves up: they should be cited, except for
rubbish like the second source you refer to, the anonymous
JNi.Media hosted by
The Jewish Press, itself not a particularly good source. I say it is rubbish because whoever lies behind the anonymity writes.
The Iranian author claims to have retrieved this information from spy cables sent by the Guardian and Al Jazeera
The author claimed no such thing:
Israel has “plans to appropriate African diamonds”, as well as efforts to secure “African uranium, thorium and other radioactive elements used to manufacture nuclear fuel,” according to spy cables revealed by the Guardian and the Al Jazeera, citing South African Intelligence agents Reza Bahar Africa is home to other precious minerals, as well.'
Islamic Republic News Agency 23/09/2015
The main reason I wrote that I'm not fond of this article is that I don't know of an proven direct connection between Yinon's opinion and Israeli official policy. Of course one can argue for similarities as many authors have, and one can claim that he was some "former senior official" (which is a particular assertion I would not bet my house on), but only a handful of senior officials make policy and we would know more about Yinon if he was one of them. I think this article should exist just because the noise surrounding Yinon's article is sufficiently loud, but we must be careful in attributing all opinions to those making them.
Zerotalk09:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Cut it out. Of course Oded Yinon existed.
I've never been fond of this article, but really this rubbish about Oded Yinon not existing has to stop. I have no sympathy for people who repeatedly parrot this fable without the slightest evidence. Of course he existed. You can look at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oded Yinon for multiple proofs provided by Roland. I also provided proofs but I don't know where they are (maybe on the talk page of the deleted article). For example the letter he published in
Commentary, Vol 78, No 6, 1984, pages 9–10? Do non-existent people write letters? Even better, his letter in the same magazine of Vol 82, No 6, 1986, page 11 is perfectly consistent: "The idea of 'territory for peace' has been dead for years..a measure of the [Israeli] cabinet's naïveté and stupidity...In the coming years, however, we are going to see a totally different Israeli policy."
Here you can find Yinon's article in Kivunim listed in an Israeli library catalogue with full bibliographic details. And
here the details of several other publications of the non-existent Oded Yinon.
Zerotalk19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Of course. The problem was not that silly idea, so much as the fact that two of the 3 editors who edited the page, and obviously saw this attempt to deny his existence, did not care to remove the ridiculous counter-factual intrusion of Yinon being an 'alleged' person. This indifference by long-term editors watching the page to blatantly counterfactual edits (if they can be read as supportive of one POV?) is one of several things that made me change my mind, and come back here.
Nishidani (
talk)
21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Undue weight to a conspiracy theory charge in the lead
Why should a POV coming from an Israeli source claiming the Yinon plan is a conspiracy theory be pushed into the lead? The lead should be representative of the general points in the body. The conspiracy charge to me makes for undue weight and POV-pushing! --
Expectant of Light (
talk)
06:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by POV? We mention that the Yinon Plan is a document, with a theory which is mentioned in reliable sources as feeding into conspiracy theories. This is simply a precise registration of what sources say, and what we are obliged to transcribe. Not to do so, as you seem to suggest, would be to repress valid POV documentation pertinent to the theory's fate.
Nishidani (
talk)
10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Haaretz is a reliable source for matters concerning Israel. The article used as a source discusses conspiracy theories in general, not only the Yinon Plan and not only ones about Israel. It doesn't express any point of view.
I've added it to the lead since most of the times I've heard about the Yinon Plan it was included in some conspiracy theory. Every attempt to try to make this document relevant today to Israeli policy is usually part of a conspiracy theory.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The perception of conspiracy theory is often subjective. So you can't determine it based on your personal judgement of what is and is not a conspiracy theory. At any rate, I believe you need more reliable sources to back up the weight given to the thesis in the lead. Otherwise it has to move to the body. --
Expectant of Light (
talk)
05:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
If there are any further POV issues, please put then down, with clear specific examples so that each issue can be dealt with. The function of tags is not to blemish, but to request work be done. If the work is done, they no longer serve their poipose.
This tag was put in, I called for details, a very few were supplied. I replied extensively in the earlier thread to each, and at times the text was adjusted. I think the former POV queries have been answered, and therefore the POV tag is past its due expiry date. I therefore intend to remove it.
Nishidani (
talk)
19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply